Wichtiger Hinweis

    Gemäß der geltenden Sächsischen Corona-Schutz-Verordnung dürfen Personengruppen, die das Gebäude betreten möchten und Angehörige verschiedener Hausstände umfassen, maximal aus 11 Personen bestehen (§ 2 Abs. 2 Nr. 2 SächsCoronaSchVO).

Search in ‘Judgments and decisions’


Judgment of 24 October 2019 - BVerwG 2 C 3.18 (uploaded on 17 September 2020)

Disciplinary punishment of off-duty possession of child pornographic material in the form of image files by teachers

Headnotes

1. As a general rule, off-duty possession of child pornography - even in small quantity or of low-threshold content - by a teacher employed as a civil servant entails disciplinary removal of civil servant status by virtue of the loss of trust on the part of the employer and the general public associated with such possession.

2. Due to the different purposes of criminal law and disciplinary law, the specific penalty pronounced by way of sentencing does not have indicative effect limiting the determination of disciplinary measures.

Decision of 5 September 2019 - BVerwG 3 C 1.18 (uploaded on 13 October 2020)

Decision to request a preliminary ruling concerning the use of the calcium-containing alga Lithothamnium calcareum in organic drinks

Headnotes

A preliminary ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union is required on the question as to whether the remains of dead calcium-containing algae Lithothamnium calcareum may be used in the production of organic foodstuffs.

The proceedings are suspended.

The following questions on the interpretation of Commission Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 of 5 September 2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products with regard to organic production, labelling and control (OJ L 250 p. 1), as last amended by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1584 of 22 October 2018 (OJ L 264 p. 1), are referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling:

1. Is article 28 of Regulation No 889/2008, read in conjunction with no. 1.3 of Annex IX thereto, to be interpreted as meaning that the alga Lithothamnium calcareum may be used as an ingredient in the processing of organic food?

2. In the event that that question is to be answered in the affirmative: Is the use of dead algae also permitted?

3. In the event that question 2 is also to be answered in the affirmative: For a product that contains the (dead) alga Lithothamnium calcareum as an ingredient and is labelled with the indication "Organic", is the use of the indications "contains calcium", "contains calcium-rich sea alga" or "contains high-quality calcium from the sea alga Lithothamnium" permitted?

Decision of 15 August 2019 - BVerwG 1 C 32.18 (uploaded on 13 October 2020)

Decision to request a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of article 2 (j) third indent of Directive 2011/95/EU

Headnotes

The proceedings are suspended.

A preliminary ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union is obtained on the following questions in accordance with article 267 TFEU:

1. In the case of an applicant for asylum who, before the point at which the age of majority is reached by his child, by way of whom a family existed in the country of origin and to whom subsidiary protection status was granted, following the attainment of majority, on the basis of an application for protection filed before the age of majority was reached (hereinafter the beneficiary of protection), entered the host Member State of the beneficiary of protection and also made an application for international protection there (hereinafter the applicant for asylum), and in the case of a national provision which, in relation to the granting of a right to be granted subsidiary protection, that right being derived from the beneficiary of subsidiary protection, makes reference to article 2 (j) of Directive 2011/95/EU, is the point in time at which the decision on the asylum application of the applicant for asylum is taken or an earlier point in time to be taken into account for the question as to whether the beneficiary of protection is a "minor" within the meaning of article 2 (j) third indent of Directive 2011/95/EU, such as the point in time at which

a) the beneficiary of protection was granted subsidiary protection status,

b) the applicant for asylum made his asylum application,

c) the applicant for asylum entered the host Member State, or

d) the beneficiary of protection made his asylum application?

2. In the event

a) that the point in time at which the application is made is decisive: Is the request for protection expressed in writing, verbally or in any other way and made known to the national authority responsible for the asylum application (request for asylum) or the formal application for international protection to be taken as the basis in this respect?

b) that the point in time at which the applicant for asylum enters the territory or the point in time at which he makes the asylum application is decisive: Is it also significant whether, at that point in time, the decision on the application for protection of the beneficiary of protection who was subsequently recognised as being a beneficiary of subsidiary protection had not yet been taken?

3. a) What requirements are to be imposed in the situation described in question 1. in order for the applicant for asylum to be a "family member" (article 2 (j) of Directive 2011/95/EU) who is present "in the same Member State in relation to the application for international protection" in which the person who was granted international protection is present and by way of whom the family "already" existed "in the country of origin"? Does this require, in particular, that family life between the beneficiary of protection and the applicant for asylum within the meaning of article 7 CFR has been resumed in the host Member State, or is the mere simultaneous presence of the beneficiary of protection and the applicant for asylum in the host Member State sufficient in this respect? Is a parent a family member even if, depending on the circumstances of the individual case, entry into the territory was not intended for the purpose of actually assuming responsibility within the meaning of article 2 (j) third indent of Directive 2011/95/EU for a beneficiary of international protection who is still a minor and unmarried?

b) If question 3. a) is to be answered to the effect that family life between the beneficiary of protection and the applicant for asylum within the meaning of article 7 CFR must have been resumed in the host Member State, is the point in time at which it resumed significant? In that regard, must account be taken, in particular, of whether family life was re-established within a certain period of time after the applicant for asylum entered the territory, or at the point in time at which the applicant for asylum makes the asylum application or at a point in time at which the beneficiary of protection was still a minor?

4. Does the status of an applicant for asylum as a family member within the meaning of article 2 (j) third indent of Directive 2011/95/EU end when the beneficiary of protection reaches the age of majority and the associated responsibility for a person who is a minor and unmarried ceases to exist? In the event that this is answered in the negative: Does this status as a family member (and the associated rights) continue to exist indefinitely beyond that point in time or does it cease to exist after a certain period of time (if so: what period of time?) or upon the occurrence of certain events (if so: which events?)?

Judgment of 17 July 2019 - BVerwG 5 C 8.18 (uploaded on 21 July 2020)

Compatibility of the minimum period of education or training in accordance with section 5 (2) third sentence BAföG (now section 5 (2) second sentence BAföG) with the right of free movement and residence under EU law

Headnote

The minimum period of residence relating to attendance at a particular education or training establishment referred to in section 5 (2) third sentence first half-sentence BAföG is not compatible with the right of free movement and residence under EU law and does not apply to attendance at education or training establishments in EU Member States.

Decision of 4 July 2019 - BVerwG 7 C 31.17 (uploaded on 30 January 2020)

Request to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling regarding the insolvency administrator's access to information about tax data of revenue authorities

Headnotes

Request to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling regarding the insolvency administrator's access to information about tax data of revenue authorities.

The Court of Justice of the European Union is requested to clarify the following questions concerning the interpretation of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation, OJ L 119 of 4 May 2016, p. 1) by way of a preliminary ruling in accordance with article 267 TFEU:

1. Does article 23 (1) (j) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 also serve to protect the interests of revenue authorities?

2. If so, does the wording "the enforcement of civil law claims" also cover the defence of the revenue authority against civil law claims and must such claims already have been submitted?

3. Does the provision of article 23 (1) (e) of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 relating to the protection of an important financial interest of a Member State in taxation matters allow a restriction of the right of access under article 15 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 in relation to the defence of civil law insolvency avoidance claims against the revenue authority?

Judgment of 4 July 2019 - BVerwG 1 C 31.18 (uploaded on 11 February 2020)

Risk upon return for a Syrian national who evaded reserve service by emigrating

Headnotes

1. In order for a well-founded fear of persecution as defined in section 3 (1) no. 1 AsylG to exist, a risk assessment based on the standard at the level of considerable probability of persecution is required; in this regard, the court responsible for finding the facts must also arrive at the conviction required under section 108 (1) VwGO even if the status of information is unclear.

2. A person seeking protection without having previously suffered persecution bears the burden of proof (or persuasion) for the considerable probability of the persecution with which the person is threatened upon return.

3. In the case of an act of persecution under section 3a (2) no. 5 AsylG, a connection with a reason for persecution is also required.

Judgment of 4 July 2019 - BVerwG 2 C 38.17 (uploaded on 8 October 2020)

Reimbursing bailiff's costs for computer glasses; requirements under EU law

Headnotes

1. The requirement stipulated by EU law under article 9 (3) and (4) of Directive 90/270/EEC, according to which the provision of a worker with special corrective appliances may in no circumstances involve that worker in additional financial cost, precludes to require the bailiff to bear the costs for computer glasses out of the amount of fees he or she earns in excess of his or her alimentation.

2. Special computer glasses deemed necessary after an ophthalmological examination do not constitute typical expenses for exercising the work of a bailiff within the meaning of section 1 (3) GVVergVO RP.

Judgment of 13 June 2019 - BVerwG 3 C 28.16 (uploaded on 6 October 2020)

Prohibition of killing male chicks

Headnote

In light of animal welfare as a state objective, the economic interest in layers with high laying performance is in itself not a reasonable cause within the meaning of section 1 second sentence TierSchG for killing male chicks from these breeding lines. However, if it is foreseeable that alternatives to killing the chicks will be available in the near future and these will burden the hatchery to a significantly smaller degree than rearing the animals, continuation of the previous practice for a transitional period is still based on a reasonable cause within the meaning of this provision.

Judgment of 15 May 2019 - BVerwG 7 C 27.17 (uploaded on 9 September 2020)

Integration of new projects into the assessment of the implications for the site under the Habitats Directive (cumulative assessment)

Headnotes

1. Other plans and projects are to be integrated into the assessment of the implications for the site (cumulative assessment) under section 34 (1) first sentence BNatSchG, if their impact, and therefore the extent of the cumulative impact, can be predicted reliably. As a matter of principle, this is not already the case upon submission of verifiable documents or public display of the documents, but only when the necessary approval decisions have been issued (confirmation of the established jurisprudence of the BVerwG, e.g., judgments of 21 May 2008 - 9 A 68.07 - (...) and of 9 February 2017 - 7 A 2.15 - BVerwGE 158, 1 para. 219).

2. The project-related cut-off value (Abschneidewert) for eutrophying nitrogen inputs of 0.3 kg N/(ha·a) does not require correction, also in view of the cumulative effects of several projects.

3. As a rule, it is not necessary to relate the cumulative assessment back to the date on which the Habitats Directive sites were granted protection in December 2004.

Decision of 14 May 2019 - BVerwG 1 C 5.18 (uploaded on 7 May 2020)

Decision to request a preliminary ruling concerning interpretation of article 12 (1) (a) of Directive 2011/95/EU

Headnotes

A preliminary ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union is obtained on the following questions in accordance with article 267 TFEU:

1. When assessing the question of whether, within the meaning of article 12 (1) (a) second sentence of Directive 2011/95/EU, a stateless Palestinian is no longer granted protection or assistance of the UNRWA, is account to be taken from a geographical perspective solely of the respective field of operation (Gaza Strip, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, West Bank) in which the stateless person had his or her actual residence upon leaving the area of operations of the UNRWA (in this case: Syria), or also of further fields of operation belonging to the area of operations of the UNRWA?

2. If account is not solely to be taken of the field of operation upon leaving: Is account always to be taken, regardless of further conditions, of all the fields of operation of the area of operations? If not: Are further fields of operation only to be taken into consideration if the stateless person had a substantial (territorial) connection to that field of operation? Is a habitual residence - at the time of or prior to leaving - required for such a connection? Are further circumstances to be taken into consideration when examining a substantial (territorial) connection? If so: Which ones? Does it matter whether it is possible and reasonable for the stateless person to enter the relevant field of operation when leaving the UNRWA area of operations?

3. Is a stateless person who leaves the area of operations of the UNRWA because his or her personal safety is at serious risk in the field of operation of his or her actual residence, and it is impossible for the UNRWA to grant him or her protection or assistance there, entitled, within the meaning of article 12 (1) (a) second sentence of Directive 2011/95/EU, ipso facto to the benefits of the Directive even if he or she previously went to that field of operation without his or her personal safety having been at serious risk in the field of operation of his or her former residence and without being able to expect, according to the circumstances at the time of the move, to experience protection or assistance by the UNRWA in the field of operation into which he or she moves and to return to the field of operation of his or her previous residence in the foreseeable future?

4. When assessing the question of whether a stateless person is not to be granted ipso facto refugee status because the conditions of article 12 (1) (a) second sentence of Directive 2011/95/EU ceased to apply once he or she left the area of operations of the UNRWA, is account to be taken solely of the field of operation of the last habitual residence? If not: Is consideration also, by analogy, to be given to the areas of which account is to be taken under no. 2 for the time of leaving? If not: Which criteria are to be used to determine the areas which are to be taken into consideration at the time of the decision on the application? Does the cessation of application of the conditions of article 12 (1) (a) second sentence of Directive 2011/95/EU require the (state or quasi-state) bodies in the relevant field of operation to be prepared to (re)admit the stateless person?

5. In the event that, in connection with the satisfaction or cessation of application of the conditions of article 12 (1) (a) second sentence of Directive 2011/95/EU, the field of operation of the (last) habitual residence is of significance: Which criteria are decisive for establishing habitual residence? Is lawful residence authorised by the country of residence required? If not: Is there at least a need for the conscious acceptance of the residence of the stateless person concerned by the responsible bodies of the field of operation? If so in this respect: Does the presence of the individual stateless person have to be specifically known to the responsible bodies or is the conscious acceptance of residence as a member of a larger group of people sufficient? If not: Is actual residence for a relatively long period of time sufficient in itself?

No results found.

FAQFrequently asked questions

  • What judgments or decisions of the Federal Administrative Court can I find on the website?

    You can find rulings of the Federal Administrative Court from January 2002 onwards on this website. Excluded are inter alia

    • Decisions regarding values of the matter in dispute
    • Determinations of costs
    • Third-party summons
    • Settlement deals
    • Rulings that are classified or that have been rendered incomprehensible or distorted by the anonymisation required by law.

    Rulings of the Federal Administrative Court passed before the year 2002 will gradually be added to the website. You can also find abbreviated versions of several several rulings in English.

  • When is the decision text for a judgment made available?

    It is usually published several weeks, in some cases also several months, after the delivery of a judgment.

    The background of this is as follows: In general, the Federal Administrative Court passes a judgment after a hearing and a deliberation. At that point in time, there is a ruling, the operative part of the judgment (so-called Tenor), but the text of the reasons for the ruling is not available yet. The written reasons will only be drawn up, a vote on them will be taken by the Senate, and they will be signed after the passing. Then the judgment will be delivered to all parties involved in the proceedings, anonymised and published.

  • What is the ECLI and what is it used for?

    ECLI is the abbreviation for the European Case Law Identifier. It serves to identify court rulings and enables cross-border search in a European judgment database. The ECLI allows for the linking of several sources and versions such as summaries, translations and comments for a judgment or decision. The ECLI often does not only lead you to just a single judgment, but to many other documents regarding this judgment.

  • How can I do research all over Europe using the ECLI?

    You can use the ECLI to do research in all participating national and European databases. That includes: